???? do you like making stuff up as you go along? does it make you feel right when you are wrong?
LMAO sorry you couldnt be any further from the truth and nothing he implies that at all except in your fantasy world where you read what you want to, get a clue.
The parts I like best about your meaningless argument is YOU are always telling ME how iI think and the REAL meanings of things I type even though I tell you different LOL
Me - my favorite color is blue
you - no its not, you say it is but i can tell its red
me - no seriously its blue
you - you shouldnt like red because other colors are better
me - if you say so but i like blue
you - cant believe you hate blue so much and you love red
:2rofll:
keep them coming its funny
if you need clarification on something though try asking instead or ignoring or guessing wrong
Did I say they didn't?Why don't the no people have to explain?
| Moderator's Warning: |
actually yes according to the post and its context just not to according to your wrong interpentation of it LOLNot according to the quote I posted.
I challenge anyone to make any sense out of this paragraph or how it has anything to do with my initial response.
yes i argued how YOUR morals dont matter because its discrimination UNDER THE LAW, you still get to practise YOUR morals, you dont not get to force them on others and it also it has nothing to do with "my"morals hahahahahahahahahahahahahaI don’t know, it sounds like you argued exactly that.
deny it all you want the facts remain the sameNot really but again you can think what you like.
Yes your reasoning has already been debunked.
The sad part is this whole post you made was nothing more than a rant with no substance and made almost no snese.
I was not debating anything at all. I was answering your question.
This is not true. Without a state license you cannot have a sacramental marriage, period. This is a fact. So no, I am not ignoring anything.
I am against civil marriage in all cases. As I stated, the government should never have gotten into the marriage business. Since they are now, and this is not going to change. We have to work with what we have.
This is not what I was referring to. Since you are new here, I don’t mind repeating what I have said many times before.
A civil union recognized by the state and honored by the Federal government constitutionally must be recognized by all states as a legal and binding contract, with all the benefits of marriage.
If it were not valid gay marriage would already be the law, it however is not. So yes it is just as relevant as anyone else’s opinion.
Just because it is an “opinion” in and of itself, does not make it irrelevant.
You asked the question. All I did was explain it.
As for your view, that’s cool and you are welcome to it, but this alone does not make you correct. Fact is 70+ percent of this country identifies them selves as Christian. This alone makes it matter. We do have a secular government, but we have a predominantly Christian population.
Any large block of voters is free to vote their conscience on the issues. The victory of anti-gay marriage proponents in CA, should be ample proof of this. So what my God says certainly does matter to me, and because it also matters to 224,437,959 Christian Americans, it should matter to you as well.
Where did this silly notion of “the state has a duty to treat all citizens equally” come from? If this were the case “hate laws” and “affirmative action” would not exist, so no the state is under no “obligation.”
I agree that their is no religious obligation to recognize civil marriage now. Since government can pass no law forcing churches to accept this, it is not really a concern.
We will see about the rest.
Nothing to contribute but insults?
but you are in fact NOT, you are telling me how YOU wrongly interpret them, thats whats clear, since you dont get to make that decesion you see how you are just wrong.No, I am telling you what you posted. The meaning is pretty clear.
Again more nonsensical rants, nothing even to respond too.
I mean, the word "marriage" under law doesn't have the same definition, requirements, etc. as the word "marriage" in a Christian religion like Catholicism, for example. So the definitions of civil marriage and sacramental marriage are different anyway. It's not like including same-sex couples in civil marriage would affect sacramental marriage because they're separate institutions as it is.
Because they practice unhealthy and perverted sexual practices, exclusively.
no insults, you clearly misunderstood what you THINK you read or what I think
in now way what so ever do I want "freedom of thought or conscience done away with" LMAO how you could be so wrong about that Ill never know. Actually if things go my way youll have MORE freedom of thought.
Guess only YOURS matters though in stead of other americans
but you are in fact NOT, you are telling me how YOU wrongly interpret them, thats whats clear, since you dont get to make that decesion you see how you are just wrong.
Like I said if i say blue is my favorite color you dont get to tell me its red?????
agreed because you cant, argue what is being said and not what you are making up in your head, like
- my morals are more important
- i want to be rid of freedom of thought or conscience
none of these things are true by any stretch, so again, ill be waiting for you to give a good reason
Actually, you didn't answer my question of how civil unions somehow don't legitimize gay relationships at all (even though they give identical legal rights to those of marriage), while a simple word change ("marriage") magically causes those relationships to be legitimized.
Hmm I didn't know every church in the nation had that requirement for their sacramental marriage... Anyway, you can't deny the separation of church and state and here's why: You don't need proof of a sacramental marriage in order to receive a civil marriage license.
So you're against civil marriage at all, fine with me. But they do exist, separate from any religion (the government doesn't favor Catholic marriages over atheist marriages), so your religious objection to someone else's marriage who follows another religion shouldn't influence the law, sorry.
Fine, let's say that federal civil unions are legally equal for the sake of argument. Given that, I still don't understand how you approve of federal civil unions, but literally the substitution of the word "marriage" for "civil union" somehow is a huge problem. I mean, the word "marriage" under federal law doesn't have the same definition, requirements, etc. as the word "marriage" in a Christian religion like Catholicism, for example. So the definitions of civil marriage and sacramental marriage are different anyway. It's not like including same-sex couples in civil marriage would affect sacramental marriage because they're separate institutions as it is.
If there was a true separation of church and state like the Constitution guarantees, gay marriage would already be the law. The problem is, politicians don't always separate their own religious views from their decisions within the government. You're right that it simply being an opinion doesn't make it irrelevant. However, in this context you have admitted that your opinion is based completely on your religious views, which DOES make it an irrelevant opinion when we're discussing laws and policies for a nation that is home to many, many people who do not follow your religion. That's the point of a separation of church and state, so that no religion can use the law to impose its views on other people.
I mean, I'm Catholic and I still don't think Catholic morals should be the basis of civil laws that everyone, Catholics and non-Catholics alike, has to obey or face punishment from the government. If a Protestant tried to make their religious laws into secular laws that I had to obey, I'd be pissed because I don't believe in them. So no, it doesn't matter that 70% of the nation identify as Christian. It doesn't give Christianity the right to oppress religious minorities under our secular government. It doesn't.
I guess I misspoke, the state has a duty to ensure equal treatment for all citizens. That's the reason for hate laws and affirmative action, to counteract the unequal treatment that certain citizens face.
Out of the last three pages or so that I have read, you have been disrespectful in every single post. How and why you don't see it is amazingly bizarre...
actually yes according to the post and its context just not to according to your wrong interpentation of it LOL
simply only pointing out how wrong you are and you dont know what you are talking about LMAO
yes i argued how YOUR morals dont matter because its discrimination UNDER THE LAW, you still get to practise YOUR morals, you dont not get to force them on others and it also it has nothing to do with "my"morals hahahahahahahahahahahahaha
again I think you make up stuff in your head has you go lol
deny it all you want the facts remain the sameit is discrimination plain and simple
not in one single post of yours EVER lmao
i didnt have to counter because you CLEARLY dont understand the debate and make up your own wrong opinions to what you think people mean when they say something totally different
sorry you failed keep trying though this is fun
please argue things actually said and meant it will help us keep on course
I am done responding to you. You don’t want to have a civil conversation.
God bless.
Because it does in a sense that society would be more accepting or make it look more normal.
You can not be legally married without a license from the state.
Who is denying the separation of church and state? You said you can get married in a church without a license, I said no you can’t.
I agree, I don’t want to live in a theocracy. The Bible was not meant to be a system of government. It is a guide for our spiritual salvation. That said, this is not an excuse to live with what we see as corruption and are duty bound to fight against it legally.
Think of it this way. No one is restricting your right to practice your religious beliefs. But you are trying to restrict other people's rights to practice their legal rights, free from the influence of YOUR religion. And that's not acceptable.
But you support civil unions...?? Surely they make it more normalized than it would otherwise be. Both civil unions and civil marriage legitimize and normalize it to different degrees. If you're against normalizing it at all, then I don't understand why you claim to support civil unions.
Um, exactly... that's what a legal marriage is, getting recognized by the state... It has nothing to do with religion because atheists can get legally married. Again, that's the separation between church and state. You don't need to be religious to get equal state benefits.
YOU are denying it. In YOUR church you can't get married without a legal marriage license maybe, but you can't assume that that is true for every single religion practiced by the more than 300,000,000 people in the U.S. Religions are free to establish their own requirements for their own marriages that are recognized by their own churches. And they are not forced by the government to recognize all civil marriages.
So correct me if I'm wrong, but according to this and the rest of your post, you essentially believe that everyone should be forced to follow your religious beliefs because you believe them to be right and it's your duty to make them the laws that everyone has to follow, whether they believe in your God or not.
If you want to preach that people are sinning, be my guest. But you DO NOT have the right to enshrine your religious beliefs that I don't agree with into my laws that I have to obey. Again, the problem is that not everyone in this country follows your religion!
Think of it this way. No one is restricting your right to practice your religious beliefs. But you are trying to restrict other people's rights to practice their own beliefs. And that's not acceptable.
Are you including lesbians in your summation?
Its not a fact that male queers have anal sex? Its not a fact that the anus isn't designed for sex and is easily damaged? Its not a fact that the anus is full of excrement, which is up to 50% live bacteria by weight?No they don't. Your statement is false, and not based on any kind of fact.
Unhealthy? Evidence of how their sexual acts or more unhealthy than heteros that practice the same acts please, otherwise, you should be trying to not allow heteros that engage in anal and oral the right to be married as well, right?
Perverted? Opinionated rubbish...
Is it not a fact that many hetrosexual couples (or groups) have anal sex?Its not a fact that male queers have anal sex? Its not a fact that the anus isn't designed for sex and is easily damaged? Its not a fact that the anus is full of excrement, which is up to 50% live bacteria by weight?
I'm perverted, yet you advocate queer sex, even for non-queers. Kindly explain your logic.
Is it not a fact that many hetrosexual couples (or groups) have anal sex?
Good for them.You do realize that many gays do not have penetrative sex?
When heteros engage in queer sex acts they are indeed engaging in unhealthy sexual practices. I'm sorry but I don't see your point.
Civil unions are nothing more than a civil contract recognized by the state. That's it, no implications or justifying of sin. Holy matrimony is not in any way the same thing. It is a union brought together by God, not the state.
Does not make it right, as I said it is the way our system is and we have to work within the system.
No I am not. You cannot have a legally recognized marriage without a license from the state, period. This goes for any state and any religion. Without it the best you can get is a common law marriage after having lived together for so many years. The amount of time again depends on the state.
That is over simplified, and no. It is not about forcing anyone to do anything. Unless you want to force Christians to accept things they see as morally wrong.
We have a secular government that cannot pass laws based on religion. This of course does not mean the people cannot vote based on their own moral code even if religious. This is what I am referring to.
I am under no restriction when it comes to supporting laws or ideas I see as right or wrong. No such thing as a sin that is OK. In the end it is still wrong and I and many others will not support or condone this.
No right exists for two men or women to marry the same sex as far as I know. Now if the state wants to grant that power via a civil union, I am OK with that. But dont try and tell me a same sex couple is a marriage, its not.
PS I noticed you ignored my prostitute comment? What about polygamy etc?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?